I think the meteor example is stretching a bit, a meteor hitting your house is an extraordinary random event.

No, the meteor hitting your house is an extraordinarily unlikely event, just like Australia getting into a shooting war with China while simultaneously the US both stops being Australia's ally and becomes China's ally to the point the US would just ignore China attacking Australia is an extraordinarily unlikely event.

GaoZu wrote:

However to give up the deep strike capability would be suicidal.

No, jumping in front of a moving train would be suicidal. Australia giving up deep strike capability today is much closer to living in a city today and selling your car because you use it once or twice a year. They can always buy it later if they need it, just like you can always buy a car later if you need it. A potential hot war with China without the US as an ally is something Australia could see the potential for decades in advance and then re-arm with the latest & greatest US or EU aircraft if that potential actually appears.

Australia giving up deep strike capability today is much closer to living in a city today and selling your car because you use it once or twice a year. They can always buy it later if they need it, just like you can always buy a car later if you need it.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Air forces (or any military force, for that matter) aren't something one can just whip up at a moment's notice. You're going to need years, if not decades, to resurrect a competent force - there's pilots to train, organizations and logistics to sort out, operational scenarios devised and refined, etc.

There's a very real sustainment argument for keeping around some portion of any military force (not at current levels, of course).

There is a sustainment argument if you have a real need for a capability.

Like Aardvarks? Pose a reasonably likely mission for them which justifies retaining that capability.

As for deep strike, build missiles instead and you don't have to protect a strike package with all that includes suck as AWACS, tankers, protecting AWACS and tankers, the expensive logistic trail.

To play conventional defense, be able to kill what's sent at you.

If you want to stop China, build nukes and be willing to die in taking out enough ChiComs that you aren't worth disturbing. MAD works against rational actors. Hiding under US nuclear skirts will work for a while, but nukes or proxy nukes are similar.

Preparing to fight conventional existentialist war is stupid because nukes trump conventional war and nuclear war is practical in the sense that the world won't end if one is fought.If you are serious about existentialist war there is no limit to your willingness to kill every enemy human, uniformed or not. That trump is necessary so there is no worthwhile escalation option for your opponent. Their choice is peace or death.

If you are credible, no one tests you. See "North Korea" for a small state made externally secure by minimal nuclear capability.

Australia giving up deep strike capability today is much closer to living in a city today and selling your car because you use it once or twice a year. They can always buy it later if they need it, just like you can always buy a car later if you need it.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Air forces (or any military force, for that matter) aren't something one can just whip up at a moment's notice. You're going to need years, if not decades, to resurrect a competent force - there's pilots to train, organizations and logistics to sort out, operational scenarios devised and refined, etc.

There's a very real sustainment argument for keeping around some portion of any military force (not at current levels, of course).

You didn't read my entire post. I never argued that said military capability can be regained instantly. In fact, I specifically noted that the need for said capability would be visible decades in advance so that the military would have plenty of time to acquire both the hardware and the operational know-how before it was needed in a combat scenario.

Analogies are never perfect. This imperfect and not very nuanced analogy was in response to damingli85/GaoZu's rather unique and not very nuanced worldview.

If you are serious about existentialist war there is no limit to your willingness to kill every enemy human, uniformed or not. That trump is necessary so there is no worthwhile escalation option for your opponent. Their choice is peace or death.

Because nobody ever conned someone else into starting a fight, then walked in behind them when it was over. And all heads-of-military now and the future can be counted on to be rational actors with their people's best interests in mind.

It would be foolish for Australia to rely solely on US support against future threats, if for no other reason than that the US would notice the freeloading and wouldn't be very pleased with it.

I agree, if no other reason than our own military budget reduction. We do need to decrease our regular military spending as a matter of fiscal practicality...and there's always whims of politics to consider. If Australia does not wish to or feel comfortable relying on US military assistance to fix their problems for them, then let them develop their military accordingly.

No it isn't. The US didn't lift a finger during the East Timor when Australia initially requested assistance.

It would be foolish for Australia to rely solely on US support against future threats, if for no other reason than that the US would notice the freeloading and wouldn't be very pleased with it.

Indonesia wasn't attacking Australia. Nor was East Timor. "Allies" doesn't mean "joins in any military adventure you decide to embark on". The United States knows that, better than anyone else.

Of course, if you want to able to send your military to other countries for whatever purpose, the requirements for that are very different and can be substantial. But if one only wants to maintain sufficient defensive capability to deter invasion, the requirements are pretty light, and you can count on historical allies.

I think the meteor example is stretching a bit, a meteor hitting your house is an extraordinary random event.

No, the meteor hitting your house is an extraordinarily unlikely event, just like Australia getting into a shooting war with China while simultaneously the US both stops being Australia's ally and becomes China's ally to the point the US would just ignore China attacking Australia is an extraordinarily unlikely event.

GaoZu wrote:

However to give up the deep strike capability would be suicidal.

No, jumping in front of a moving train would be suicidal. Australia giving up deep strike capability today is much closer to living in a city today and selling your car because you use it once or twice a year. They can always buy it later if they need it, just like you can always buy a car later if you need it. A potential hot war with China without the US as an ally is something Australia could see the potential for decades in advance and then re-arm with the latest & greatest US or EU aircraft if that potential actually appears.

US doesn't have to be China's ally, she can just stand on the side line. Also, weapons systems can't just be picked up when you need it. Here is a very basic list of things you need to do before you can consider a weapons system full operable in armed forces.

I could be very wrong about those three steps but they are there. So essentially by the time Australia finished training and incorporating any type of weapon system it would probably be too late.

There are also issues relating to developing experience and institutional knowledge, which aren't things that you can just spin-up on an as-needed basis.

A lot of analysts downplayed China's acquisition of an aircraft carrier, noting that they hadn't even flown a single plane from it. Operating an aircraft carrier is hard, and China simply lacks the experience that the United States has since we basically invented the modern aircraft carrier. Even the most experienced fighter-pilot isn't going to be able to land on a carrier without extensive training, and China has no one to provide that training.

They should have some experience, I mean they did build an entire carrier flight deck on top of a building way while the carrier was being fitted for sea trials. Now they are doing touch and goes on the carrier. But I do agree that just because you have a carrier doesn't mean poo. You need an infrastructure for it. If China tries to deploy their carrier right now, it would be such a waste. So when Australia is in a war with whomever, and decide to implement a weapon system during that war...good luck.

That very subject is the root cause of the great communication disconnect between the Swiss army and the Swiss people.

Somehow the Swiss army can't make the Swiss people understand that we have stopped having a combat army decades ago and all we are doing right now is maintaning know-how so that we are able to rebuild a real combat army in a decade instead of having to start from scratch (which would probably take quite a few decades).

That very subject is the root cause of the great communication disconnect between the Swiss army and the Swiss people.

Somehow the Swiss army can't make the Swiss people understand that we have stopped having a combat army decades ago and all we are doing right now is maintaning know-how so that we are able to rebuild a real combat army in a decade instead of having to start from scratch (which would probably take quite a few decades).

Maybe it's time to raise a force of dedicated blue helmet troops for just that purpose. Send them to hotspots and guard positions throughout the world...

Maybe it's time to raise a force of dedicated blue helmet troops for just that purpose. Send them to hotspots and guard positions throughout the world...

Hah! We have a huge part of the population that is deeply in love with neutrality and their interpretation of neutrality pretty much means that no swiss soldier can serve outside of our borders at any time. Hell, they torpedoed a plan to send swiss soldiers to train abroad (better training places, cheaper, less negative externalities for overcrowded Switzerland) just because... well... NOT IN OUR BORDERS!!!

So trust me, foreign engagements by the Swiss army are not going to be increased.

Maybe it's time to raise a force of dedicated blue helmet troops for just that purpose. Send them to hotspots and guard positions throughout the world...

Hah! We have a huge part of the population that is deeply in love with neutrality and their interpretation of neutrality pretty much means that no swiss soldier can serve outside of our borders at any time. Hell, they torpedoed a plan to send swiss soldiers to train abroad (better training places, cheaper, less negative externalities for overcrowded Switzerland) just because... well... NOT IN OUR BORDERS!!!

So trust me, foreign engagements by the Swiss army are not going to be increased.

It is a bitter fact for me that one of the very few monument we have in Switzerland (not fans of monuments, the Swiss) is about glorifying a unit of mercenaries who protected a dictator against his own people:

That's debatable since it would also mean losing our army's only direct contact to armies who fight real wars and their experiences. It would also mean losing access to NATO programs in various fields and force us to reinvent the wheel at a very high cost again and again.

That's debatable since it would also mean losing our army's only direct contact to armies who fight real wars and their experiences. It would also mean losing access to NATO programs in various fields and force us to reinvent the wheel at a very high cost again and again.

Well, I was just pointing out that the SVP is very friendly towards the military. And if it were up to them, we'd only be procuring Swissmade equipment anyway...

But if it comes to that, might as well restart our nuclear program. I'm sure we'll do better this time! Maybe.

The SVP lives in the delusion that it is possible for tiny Switzerland to field a credible defensive force in the 21st century entirely on its own.

It's complete and utter madness, even France and the UK cannot afford such an army, there is no way in hell we can.

How come? We do it with about the same population, half the land area, and 40% of the GDP. And before you bring up the "american aid" part, it accounts for $3b of our $14.5b defense budget (and $243b nominal GDP, compared to your $636b). Hell, IDF was using Swiss army as its initial role model back in the fifties.

Well, it depends what you think you need to defend yourself from. The military threat to Israel is pretty well-defined and the capabilities of those threats are fairly limited. But there are certainly countries that would overpower Israel in a conventional war, which is why they have a secret nuclear weapons program that everyone knows about.

Although there are no credible threats to Switzerland, so I can't imagine what they'd need to build. Mecha?

Well Barmaglot.Look at a map at your neighbours. Now look at Switzerland on a map and look at our neighbours.

Now do tell me how you propose we defend ourselves against those armies.

Before you tell me that scenario is ridiculous since our neighbours are gentle giants, let me remind you that those are exactly those from whom the SVP expects the Swiss army to be able to defend against.

It's one thing to mount a credible defence force against third world shitholes, it's another one to mount a credible defence force against the European continent...

The SVP lives in the delusion that it is possible for tiny Switzerland to field a credible defensive force in the 21st century entirely on its own.

It's complete and utter madness, even France and the UK cannot afford such an army, there is no way in hell we can.

How come? We do it with about the same population, half the land area, and 40% of the GDP. And before you bring up the "american aid" part, it accounts for $3b of our $14.5b defense budget (and $243b nominal GDP, compared to your $636b). Hell, IDF was using Swiss army as its initial role model back in the fifties.

I think the point that Vlip is trying to make is that there's a significant fraction of the swiss people who believe that they shouldn't be buying military equipment from outside their borders.

As an example, I can't see any of the current fighter aircraft the israeli airforce fields being homegrown (F-15, F-15E, F-16).